If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

imported post

I used to travel from VA to a firing range in MD. I asked a DC cop once if I could drive through DC with an unloaded gun in my trunk. He said, "No handguns are allowed in D.C. period."

I thought that the Peaceable Journey Law allows me to travel through D.C. with a gun as long as I don't stop. I called the NRA and they said, "Take the Beltway." This made me mad, because DC is ignoring a Federal Law. The language of the Peaceable Journey Law states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

What part of this do I not understand? Why is the NRA not taking DC to task on this?

imported post

1. Why would you not take the Beltway? What would be the purpose of driving through downtown DC? (NOTE: If you take the Wilson Bridge you will go through DC for about 150 feet).

2. Why ask a LEO such a question? Many do not know the law and even those that do will tell you want they would like to be the law not what it is.

3. NRA probably can't understand your actions either.

I used to travel from VA to a firing range in MD. I asked a DC cop once if I could drive through DC with an unloaded gun in my trunk. He said, "No handguns are allowed in D.C. period."

I thought that the Peaceable Journey Law allows me to travel through D.C. with a gun as long as I don't stop. I called the NRA and they said, "Take the Beltway." This made me mad, because DC is ignoring a Federal Law. The language of the Peaceable Journey Law states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

What part of this do I not understand? Why is the NRA not taking DC to task on this?

imported post

Novaccw- I understood your original post on this.Looks like the response a couple of posts up was modified? Anyway, NRA was using a workaround, plain and simple. Sometimes, in the grand scheme of things you gotta do what you gotta do. Some of my ancestors served time in the Old Capitol Prison, due to the fact that they were on the wrong side of the Conflict known as the War Between the States (that's how it was termed when I was in the 5th grade in Virginia)... And we don't want to come visit you over there :shock:. That said Ilbob probably has a point of the term "State", also. Look at NY and NJ. The Peaceable Journey Law has been so abused in those two states, it's pathetic. I agree with your disgust at the NRA's answer, but I ain't going over/thru there if I don't have to, gas prices be darned.

imported post

ilbob wrote:

Note the use of the word STATE. DC is not a state.

18 USC 921. Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter—
(1)...
(2)..... The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

imported post

imported post

apjonas, thank you...I was just about to concede. I have another question, does the first sentence in the Peaceable Journey law mean that if a state or political subdivision thereof makes a law that prohibits firearms, you can't drive through with one? Or does it mean the opposite? That a state or political subdivision thereof's laws cannot trump the Peacable Journey law?

DoubleR, I agree with you...I avoid DC like the plague (when I am not working).

imported post

novaccw wrote:

apjonas, thank you...I was just about to concede. I have another question, does the first sentence in the Peaceable Journey law mean that if a state or political subdivision thereof makes a law that prohibits firearms, you can't drive through with one? Or does it mean the opposite? That a state or political subdivision thereof's laws cannot trump the Peacable Journey law?

DoubleR, I agree with you...I avoid DC like the plague (when I am not working).

I can't say for sure what that first sentence means, but I wouldn't completely negate the purpose of the law to allow localities to keep you from legally passing through. Wasn't the point to allow you easy travel without having to worry about a ton of local laws?

imported post

novaccw wrote:

apjonas, thank you...I was just about to concede. I have another question, does the first sentence in the Peaceable Journey law mean that if a state or political subdivision thereof makes a law that prohibits firearms, you can't drive through with one? Or does it mean the opposite? That a state or political subdivision thereof's laws cannot trump the Peacable Journey law?

DoubleR, I agree with you...I avoid DC like the plague (when I am not working).

imported post

novaccw wrote:

apjonas, thank you...I was just about to concede. I have another question, does the first sentence in the Peaceable Journey law mean that if a state or political subdivision thereof makes a law that prohibits firearms, you can't drive through with one? Or does it mean the opposite? That a state or political subdivision thereof's laws cannot trump the Peacable Journey law?

Caveat: I am not a lawyer and do NOT play one on TV or the Internet.

The Peacable Journey law would have no meaning if it allowed local override. This law allows your to transport it through such jurisdictions, notwithstanding (i.e., in spite of) any such laws.

imported post

At this Washington Post LTE, the writer notes that a federal court has held that FOPA should be given as a jury instruction. This implies that FOPA does apply to DC, and, that DC is legally on notice about FOPA. I looked up the case, and the LTE writer is correct.

In fact, the DC Court of Appeals,did not mince words:

"The exclusion from the trial of any reference to Bieder's rights under the FOPA made it appear that Bieder had acted unlawfully by entering the District of Columbia with a pistol when in fact he had not then violated the law at all." Bieder v. U.S., 662 A.2d 185, 189, (D.C. 1995) (italicized emphasis in original).

Lt. Jon Shelton, head of the D.C. police department's gun unit, is wrong when he says that Maryland and Virginia gun owners (and U.S. senators) may not transport a firearm through the District ["Congress, District Differ on Gun Possession Laws," Metro, March 29]. They should go around the District, he said.

Maybe they should, but they are not legally required to. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) provides that any person who may lawfully transport or receive a firearm is "entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such a firearm," provided that the gun is unloaded and not readily accessible from the passenger compartment. The act also provides that when a state or local law prohibits a lawful gun owner from transporting a firearm through a jurisdiction, the federal law takes precedence.

In 1995, the D.C. Court of Appeals held in Bieder v. United States that the trial court should have instructed the jury that the FOPA provided the defendant, who was traveling from Virginia to New York when he was arrested in the District, with an affirmative defense to the charges of carrying a pistol without a license and possession of unregistered ammunition. "Without instruction on the federal statute," the court said, "the jury was left to believe that appellant engaged in unlawful conduct by entering the District with a gun in his trunk."

Interestingly, the defendant, Robert L. Bieder, was arrested by a U.S. Capitol Police officer, under similar circumstances as Sen. James Webb's aide Phillip Thompson was.